Say OKC gets booted , would they trade Westbrook for Rondo then ? and would you?

[D.o.s.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N90C-mdaVzQ

Clearly the Celtics lost this game because Rondo focused too much on scoring and didn't look for the assist enough.

 

Hey, he plays point guard, not Pass guard.

[BballTim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N90C-mdaVzQ

Clearly the Celtics lost this game because Rondo focused too much on scoring and didn't look for the assist enough.

 

  Such is life on celticsblog. Rondo shoots a lot in a game and we lose and he's a bum. If he shot a lot in many games and we lost most of them he'd be an unattainable superstar.

[BballTim]

  I was talking about catch and shoot numbers. You can argue that there's more pressure in the playoffs but open shots are open shots. You claimed that nobody on the team aside from RW and KD can make shots. Clearly that's not true. They just don't get that many opportunities and that makes it easier to defense KD and RW, hence the lower fg% for those two. The Grizzlies were 8th in defense btw. Good team, not what they have been in the past though.

Open shots are open shots.  You're right that there are players on the Thunder who can hit easy, open shots.  I guess we disagree on whether or not those opportunities are there for the Thunder right now, and how often.

  Are you saying that the defense isn't focusing on Westbrook and Durant, or that they aren't leaving other players open when they focus on Westbrook and Durant?

[D.o.s.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N90C-mdaVzQ

Clearly the Celtics lost this game because Rondo focused too much on scoring and didn't look for the assist enough.

 

  Such is life on celticsblog. Rondo shoots a lot in a game and we lose and he's a bum. If he shot a lot in many games and we lost most of them he'd be an unattainable superstar.

Wait, so are you saying the Knicks wouldn't take Rondo for Carmelo Anthony?

[BballTim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N90C-mdaVzQ

Clearly the Celtics lost this game because Rondo focused too much on scoring and didn't look for the assist enough.

 

  Such is life on celticsblog. Rondo shoots a lot in a game and we lose and he's a bum. If he shot a lot in many games and we lost most of them he'd be an unattainable superstar.

Wait, so are you saying the Knicks wouldn't take Rondo for Carmelo Anthony?

  Not sure exactly what you're asking there, so I'll point out that what people on the blog would do and what nba teams would do is pretty unrelated.

[D.o.s.]

If he shot a lot in many games and lost most of them he'd be an unattainable superstar.

I mean, that's 'Melo this year in a nutshell, right?

[Celtics18]

It seems to me that one of the main arguments for trading Rondo is that he is a flawed player who isn't the kind of player who can be "the best player on a championship contender."

I guess my question for those who would like to trade Rondo for Westbrook would be, do you feel that Westbrook is someone who can be the best player on a championship contender?

Do you see him as that kind of "franchise talent" that if we acquired him, he would be able to lead the team to championship contention year after year as the "top dog"?

I'll answer my own question:

I don't see him as that guy.  I am not saying that I don't think Russell Westbrook is a very good basketball player, but I don't think that swapping our point guard with OKC's would put us any closer to title contention than keeping the one we already have.

Even though Rondo and Westbrook are clearly very different in style of play, some of their flaws are similar.  They are both guys who are most effective with the ball in their hands (that's another thing that those who are ready to move on from Rondo frequently mention as a reason). 

So, the next question I have is; if we were to start over with Westbrook instead of Rondo, what players would best fit around him?

If the answer is something along the lines of "guys who are good catch and shoot players, good pick and roll and pick and pop finishers--in general, guys who are good scorers without needing the ball in their hands a lot," then do you feel that Westbrook--with his significantly inferior passing ability and court vision--would be better equipped to lead a team like that into contention than Rondo?

I don't know the answers.  I know that I prefer starting with a passer and distributor like Rondo than an inefficient yet talented gunner like Westbrook.

I also know that if I were a top flight NBA player, I'd prefer to go play with a guy like Rondo to going to play with a guy like Westbrook.  Of course I'm not an NBA player, but when I go down to my local playground to play pick up basketball, those kinds of games frequently feature Westbrook types,guys who are athletic and talented, but are mostly looking to "get their own."  Those guys are never as fun to  play with as playing with guys who really know how to pass the ball.  My experience is that the latter type of player is much rarer to find.

For me it makes more sense to keep the rare talent we have in Rajon Rondo than to trade him for the kind of talent that is Russell Westbrook.

[BballTim]

If he shot a lot in many games and lost most of them he'd be an unattainable superstar.

I mean, that's 'Melo this year in a nutshell, right?

  I suppose, although I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

[D.o.s.]

It seems to me that one of the main arguments for trading Rondo is that he is a flawed player who isn't the kind of player who can be "the best player on a championship contender."

I guess my question for those who would like to trade Rondo for Westbrook would be, do you feel that Westbrook is someone who can be the best player on a championship contender?

Do you see him as that kind of "franchise talent" that if we acquired him, he would be able to lead the team to championship contention year after year as the "top dog"?

I'll answer my own question:

I don't see him as that guy.  I am not saying that I don't think Russell Westbrook is a very good basketball player, but I don't think that swapping our point guard with OKC's would put us any closer to title contention than keeping the one we already have.

Even though Rondo and Westbrook are clearly very different in style of play, some of their flaws are similar.  They are both guys who are most effective with the ball in their hands (that's another thing that those who are ready to move on from Rondo frequently mention as a reason). 

So, the next question I have is; if we were to start over with Westbrook instead of Rondo, what players would best fit around him?

If the answer is something along the lines of "guys who are good catch and shoot players, good pick and roll and pick and pop finishers--in general, guys who are good scorers without needing the ball in their hands a lot," then do you feel that Westbrook--with his significantly inferior passing ability and court vision--would be better equipped to lead a team like that into contention than Rondo?

I don't know the answers.  I know that I prefer starting with a passer and distributor like Rondo than an inefficient yet talented gunner like Westbrook.

I also know that if I were a top flight NBA player, I'd prefer to go play with a guy like Rondo to going to play with a guy like Westbrook.  Of course I'm not an NBA player, but when I go down to my local playground to play pick up basketball, those kinds of games frequently feature Westbrook types,guys who are athletic and talented, but are mostly looking to "get their own."  Those guys are never as fun to  play with as playing with guys who really know how to pass the ball.  My experience is that the latter type of player is much rarer to find.

For me it makes more sense to keep the rare talent we have in Rajon Rondo than to trade him for the kind of talent that is Russell Westbrook.

Thinking about it quickly, I think Westbrook would be really great on a team like the Bobcats, especially if you ran the kind of two-point guard system that they were running with Walker + Sessions.

If he shot a lot in many games and lost most of them he'd be an unattainable superstar.

I mean, that's 'Melo this year in a nutshell, right?

  I suppose, although I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

It's tangential, for sure.

[Moranis]

It seems to me that one of the main arguments for trading Rondo is that he is a flawed player who isn't the kind of player who can be "the best player on a championship contender."

I guess my question for those who would like to trade Rondo for Westbrook would be, do you feel that Westbrook is someone who can be the best player on a championship contender?

Do you see him as that kind of "franchise talent" that if we acquired him, he would be able to lead the team to championship contention year after year as the "top dog"?

I'll answer my own question:

I don't see him as that guy.  I am not saying that I don't think Russell Westbrook is a very good basketball player, but I don't think that swapping our point guard with OKC's would put us any closer to title contention than keeping the one we already have.

Even though Rondo and Westbrook are clearly very different in style of play, some of their flaws are similar.  They are both guys who are most effective with the ball in their hands (that's another thing that those who are ready to move on from Rondo frequently mention as a reason). 

So, the next question I have is; if we were to start over with Westbrook instead of Rondo, what players would best fit around him?

If the answer is something along the lines of "guys who are good catch and shoot players, good pick and roll and pick and pop finishers--in general, guys who are good scorers without needing the ball in their hands a lot," then do you feel that Westbrook--with his significantly inferior passing ability and court vision--would be better equipped to lead a team like that into contention than Rondo?

I don't know the answers.  I know that I prefer starting with a passer and distributor like Rondo than an inefficient yet talented gunner like Westbrook.

I also know that if I were a top flight NBA player, I'd prefer to go play with a guy like Rondo to going to play with a guy like Westbrook.  Of course I'm not an NBA player, but when I go down to my local playground to play pick up basketball, those kinds of games frequently feature Westbrook types,guys who are athletic and talented, but are mostly looking to "get their own."  Those guys are never as fun to  play with as playing with guys who really know how to pass the ball.  My experience is that the latter type of player is much rarer to find.

For me it makes more sense to keep the rare talent we have in Rajon Rondo than to trade him for the kind of talent that is Russell Westbrook.

I believe Westbrook could be the best player on a real title contender, much like Rose for Chicago and this team with Westbrook as opposed to Rondo would be closer to title contention because this team lacks what Westbrook brings to the table.  He is a real legit #1 scorer, something every team absolutely needs.  The Bulls without Rose lack the true #1 scorer it why they got beat down and nearly swept by Washington.  Teams need #1 scorers and that Westbrook is.  That is the issue with Rondo, his skill set is much more geared as a complimentary player.  A very good complimentary player, but a complimentary player nonetheless. 

[gpap]

It seems to me that one of the main arguments for trading Rondo is that he is a flawed player who isn't the kind of player who can be "the best player on a championship contender."

I guess my question for those who would like to trade Rondo for Westbrook would be, do you feel that Westbrook is someone who can be the best player on a championship contender?

Do you see him as that kind of "franchise talent" that if we acquired him, he would be able to lead the team to championship contention year after year as the "top dog"?

I'll answer my own question:

I don't see him as that guy.  I am not saying that I don't think Russell Westbrook is a very good basketball player, but I don't think that swapping our point guard with OKC's would put us any closer to title contention than keeping the one we already have.

Even though Rondo and Westbrook are clearly very different in style of play, some of their flaws are similar.  They are both guys who are most effective with the ball in their hands (that's another thing that those who are ready to move on from Rondo frequently mention as a reason). 

So, the next question I have is; if we were to start over with Westbrook instead of Rondo, what players would best fit around him?

If the answer is something along the lines of "guys who are good catch and shoot players, good pick and roll and pick and pop finishers--in general, guys who are good scorers without needing the ball in their hands a lot," then do you feel that Westbrook--with his significantly inferior passing ability and court vision--would be better equipped to lead a team like that into contention than Rondo?

I don't know the answers.  I know that I prefer starting with a passer and distributor like Rondo than an inefficient yet talented gunner like Westbrook.

I also know that if I were a top flight NBA player, I'd prefer to go play with a guy like Rondo to going to play with a guy like Westbrook.  Of course I'm not an NBA player, but when I go down to my local playground to play pick up basketball, those kinds of games frequently feature Westbrook types,guys who are athletic and talented, but are mostly looking to "get their own."  Those guys are never as fun to  play with as playing with guys who really know how to pass the ball.  My experience is that the latter type of player is much rarer to find.

For me it makes more sense to keep the rare talent we have in Rajon Rondo than to trade him for the kind of talent that is Russell Westbrook.

Yes and no.

1.)Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

2.)I think the term "rare talent" in relation to Rondo is a bit skewed. Sure, Rondo is a good passer, but it's not like being a good passer is that rare of a talent. In fact, quite the opposite, I think being a good passer is about as textbook as it gets in being a successful point guard in the NBA.

What makes Westbrook a better talent is he can score like the dickens and Rondo can not.

I am sure some might start whipping out stats like how Rondo's field goal percentage has improved since this date or that date but fact remains, I would not trust Rondo taking the last shot with the game on the line.

Many might not agree, but I think it's VERY important to have a point guard who can pass but even more importantly, one who can also shoot.

Not to slight Rondo, but that's just how I view such a comparison between the two players.

And this is why ultimately, I don't think OKC considers swapping Westbrook for Rondo.

At first, it sounds like a good idea, but the truth is if OKC deals Westbrook, their only other legit scorer is Durant.

This probably could've and would've made more sense if OKC still had Harden as now you have Rondo's facilitiating style mixed in with Harden and Durant's scoring.

But now that OKC stupidly dealt Harden, I don't see them also giving up Westbrook.

[mmmmm]

it never gets old.

When Westbrook was out, Durant averaged less than two more shots per game. If someone really is stealing shots from KD, it isn't Russell Westbrook.

Well, Westbrook is stealing shots from _someone_, then.   And Westbrook's shooting percentages are generally lower than his _team_.

And, two shots per game is pretty significant, actually, considering that Durant averages 1.54 points per FGA.   That's 3 points.

How much did they lose by last night?  (Yeah, yeah, I know - Joey Crawford.  But still.)

[playdream]

You need to pair 2~3 hall of famers around Rondo to win titles
Rondo isn't just can't shoot/score, he slows down the whole team's offense flow

[Celtics18]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender. 

[mmmmm]

So now we have a problem now that Westbrook had 30 points, 13 assists, and 10 rebounds with just 4 turnovers in a playoff game all while playing solid defense on his counterpart.

HE MISSED 21 SHOTS!!!!!!

That means he put the ball in the hands of the defense a lot more than just 4 times!

The Thunder missed 56 shots overall -- Westbrook accounting for 37.5% of them.

The Grizzlies grabbed 37 defensive rebounds, about 66% of OKC's misses.

Basically, that's Westbrooks' misses accounted for almost 14 of those.

If some other OKC player is taking some of those shots, maybe they complete them at a higher FG% rate than 32%.    The rest of the team shot poorly, but at 42.6%, that's still a hell of a lot better than how Westbrook did.

Give 15 of those 31 shots to others on the team shooting that average rate, and that's two more made shots and one less defensive rebound going to Memphis.

Do we need to mention what the final score was, again?

Sure, this is all hypothetical.  Maybes and what ifs.   But as far as I'm concerned, OKC can keep Westbrook.   I'll keep Rondo, thank you.